Abstract: This case study examines the use of an eHealth application for improving preoperative rehabilitation (prehabilitation). We have analysed healthcare professionals' motivators and drivers for adopting eHealth for a surgical procedure at academic medical facilities. The research focused on when and why healthcare professionals are inclined to adopt eHealth applications in their way of working? For this qualitative study, we selected 12 professionals involved in all levels of the organisation and stages of the medical process and conducted semi-structured interviews. Kotter’s transformational change model and the Technology Acceptance Model were used as analytical frameworks for the identification of the motivation of eHealth adoption. The findings suggest that contrary to Kotter’s change model, which argues that adoption of change is based on perceptions and feelings, the healthcare drivers are rational when it comes to deciding whether or not to adopt eHealth apps. This study further elaborates the observation made by the Dutch expertise centre on eHealth, Nictiz, that when the value of an eHealth pplication is clear for a stakeholder, the adoption process accelerates. Analysis of the motivations and drivers of the healthcare professionals show a strong relationship with an evidence-based grounding of usefulness and the responsibility these professionals have towards their patients. We found that healthcare professionals respond to the primary goal of improving healthcare. This is true if the eHealth application will innovate their work, but mainly when the application will improve the patient care they are responsible for. When eHealth applications are implemented, rational facts need to be collected in a study before deployment of eHealth applications on how these applications will improve the patient's health or wellbeing throughout their so-called medical journey for their treatment. Furthermore, the preference to learn about new eHealth applications from someone who speaks from authority through expertise on the subject matter, suggests adoption by healthcare professionals may be accelerated through peers. The result of this study may provide healthcare management with a different approach to their eHealth strategy. Future research is needed to validate the findings in different medical organisational settings such as regional healthcare facilities or for-profit centers which do not necessarily have an innovation focus but are driven by other strategic drivers.
BACKGROUND: The evidence on prophylactic use of negative pressure wound therapy on primary closed incisional wounds (iNPWT) for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSI) is confusing and ambiguous. Implementation in daily practice is impaired by inconsistent recommendations in current international guidelines and published meta-analyses. More recently, multiple new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been published. We aimed to provide an overview of all meta-analyses and their characteristics; to conduct a new and up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment; and to explore the additive value of new RCTs with a trial sequential analysis (TSA).METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from database inception to October 24, 2022. We identified existing meta-analyses covering all surgical specialties and RCTs studying the effect of iNPWT compared with standard dressings in all types of surgery on the incidence of SSI, wound dehiscence, reoperation, seroma, hematoma, mortality, readmission rate, skin blistering, skin necrosis, pain, and adverse effects of the intervention. We calculated relative risks (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We assessed publication bias with a comparison-adjusted funnel plot. TSA was used to assess the risk of random error. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 (RoB2) tool and GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022312995.FINDINGS: We identified eight previously published general meta-analyses investigating iNPWT and compared their results to present meta-analysis. For the updated systematic review, 57 RCTs with 13,744 patients were included in the quantitative analysis for SSI, yielding a RR of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.59-0.76, I 2 = 21%) for iNPWT compared with standard dressing. Certainty of evidence was high. Compared with previous meta-analyses, the RR stabilised, and the confidence interval narrowed. In the TSA, the cumulative Z-curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit, confirming the robustness of the summary effect estimate from the meta-analysis. INTERPRETATION: In this up-to-date meta-analysis, GRADE assessment shows high-certainty evidence that iNPWT is effective in reducing SSI, and uncertainty is less than in previous meta-analyses. TSA indicated that further trials are unlikely to change the effect estimate for the outcome SSI; therefore, if future research is to be conducted on iNPWT, it is crucial to consider what the findings will contribute to the existing robust evidence.FUNDING: Dutch Association for Quality Funds Medical Specialists.
